Flat out lie, who says the buildup of greenhouse gasses is proven to warm the global temperature of the planet?! Scientists? Well they also disagree with CREATIONISM, and posit the baloney of Evolution.

Next thing they will be telling us that the world wasn't created instantaneously and that fossils aren't tests from god. Horse-hockey!

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184

QUOTE (Tranque @ Oct 14 2009, 05:09 PM)

Flat out lie, who says the buildup of greenhouse gasses is proven to warm the global temperature of the planet?! Scientists? Well they also disagree with CREATIONISM, and posit the baloney of Evolution.

Although it's true that build up of greenhouse gasses heat up the planet, that's not what the debate is about, and you're making fun of a strawman. But for what it's worth, the general concensus in science isn't alway right, and not all scientists always agree. I could find you a scientist that thinks eating copper wire with your cereal is good for you, and then I could make the same sarcastic comment you just did. So yeah, failed attmept at making yourself look educated. Fucking liberal.

This debate is about whether global warming is caused by us, or natural progression. Not everything is our fault, the planet heats up and cools down all the time. I don't think we can tell right now what the main cause is. Simply looking at a graph and saying "look! temperatures have been going up, and we've been putting out more Co2" is a shitty argument, because it doesn't correlate perfectly (ie, some years the temperature decreases while Co2 output increases). What's more, Co2 doesn't build up overnight, so it's impossible to calculate without longer term studies.

Flat out lie, who says the buildup of greenhouse gasses is proven to warm the global temperature of the planet?! Scientists? Well they also disagree with CREATIONISM, and posit the baloney of Evolution.

Although it's true that build up of greenhouse gasses heat up the planet, that's not what the debate is about, and you're making fun of a strawman. But for what it's worth, the general concensus in science isn't alway right, and not all scientists always agree. I could find you a scientist that thinks eating copper wire with your cereal is good for you, and then I could make the same sarcastic comment you just did. So yeah, failed attmept at making yourself look educated. Fucking liberal.

This debate is about whether global warming is caused by us, or natural progression. Not everything is our fault, the planet heats up and cools down all the time. I don't think we can tell right now what the main cause is. Simply looking at a graph and saying "look! temperatures have been going up, and we've been putting out more Co2" is a shitty argument, because it doesn't correlate perfectly (ie, some years the temperature decreases while Co2 output increases). What's more, Co2 doesn't build up overnight, so it's impossible to calculate without longer term studies.

Trying to counter my arguement a mixing valid point (The strength of natural progression) and then republican angst (FUCKIN' LIBERAL) kind of waters down your whole "Take the high road stance".

Secondly, I do believe that the planets temperature fluctuates, but I don't think we need to be fucking with it in ways that are completely unneccessary, IE burning shit in mass amounts that really isn't good for the health or well being of the general populus, and shows minor contribution to global warning. I mean even if its a minor effect its still teasing a pitbull that is pissed and rabid for a number of reasons but on a chain. And believe me I don't want to loosen any chain or even go near the damn thing. Similarly this is why I think we should slow down on the emissions of our heaps of metal and try and get a bit green.

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184

QUOTE (Tranque @ Oct 14 2009, 11:29 PM)

Trying to counter my arguement a mixing valid point (The strength of natural progression) and then republican angst (FUCKIN' LIBERAL) kind of waters down your whole "Take the high road stance".

See, this is where you fucked up. I have no intention of taking the high road, when this debate resorts to name calling and funny political cartoons that don't illustrate a point, I'll likely be he one to instigate it. But your joke was condescending, and erroneous (scientists think bla bla bla, they're not a single entity), and although it was a joke, it still shows how you feel, your motivations for feeling that way, and what you think of those who oppose global warming. And I know it's too late, but let's try not to get caught up in semantics.

Oh, and I'm not an angsty republican, quite the contrary.

QUOTE

Secondly, I do believe that the planets temperature fluctuates, but I don't think we need to be fucking with it in ways that are completely unneccessary

In areas where there are no realistic alternatives (ie, energy), there is no evidence to motivate a drastic change. it's not as simple as "let the greedy oil/mining companies fuck off, and set up green power". In reality, they can't sell off coal mines and oil rigs that no one can use, so there stuck with them until the market makes a natural progression to preferring green energy.

Politics as usual... perhaps there is an agenda for Green motherfuckers who just want a piece of the energy pie. Hell, destroy oil and make clean energy the shit--you've just made millions by making the world dependent on clean energy now.

Not such a bad thing, but it's interesting to consider if you're skeptical.

That being said, Skinny, dude, t'was a joke that Tranque made. Practically facetious.

Trying to counter my arguement a mixing valid point (The strength of natural progression) and then republican angst (FUCKIN' LIBERAL) kind of waters down your whole "Take the high road stance".

See, this is where you fucked up. I have no intention of taking the high road, when this debate resorts to name calling and funny political cartoons that don't illustrate a point, I'll likely be he one to instigate it. But your joke was condescending, and erroneous (scientists think bla bla bla, they're not a single entity), and although it was a joke, it still shows how you feel, your motivations for feeling that way, and what you think of those who oppose global warming. And I know it's too late, but let's try not to get caught up in semantics.

Oh, and I'm not an angsty republican, quite the contrary.

QUOTE

Secondly, I do believe that the planets temperature fluctuates, but I don't think we need to be fucking with it in ways that are completely unneccessary

In areas where there are no realistic alternatives (ie, energy), there is no evidence to motivate a drastic change. it's not as simple as "let the greedy oil/mining companies fuck off, and set up green power". In reality, they can't sell off coal mines and oil rigs that no one can use, so there stuck with them until the market makes a natural progression to preferring green energy.

I don't imagine that one day someone's going to start their car one day and the world is going to immediately burst into flames. Its just regardless of how minor our actions contribute to something, whether its a fraction of a penny of a percent, we are still framing the world for the people ahead of us, our children and future generations. I'd just rather them not have to suffer for minor fuckups that we didn't really take into account today.

I also don't imagine the oil industry is going to open their arms wide and accept the death of their industry in favor of green technology, but the main point is that it cannot hurt to start a new industry that has less of an impact, regardless if you think the impact is minimal or not.

QUOTE (TreeFitty @ Oct 14 2009, 08:43 PM)

It did create (and still continues to create) new businesses and jobs in the "green" market.

It did create (and still continues to create) new businesses and jobs in the "green" market.

(i also thought it was obvious that tranque was making a joke)

I'm yet to see a government spending spree with the green issue in the north west of England, although somebody I know has just got a £75m government contract for south Wales. He'll probably walk away with a £1m +

It did create (and still continues to create) new businesses and jobs in the "green" market.

(i also thought it was obvious that tranque was making a joke)

I'm yet to see a government spending spree with the green issue in the north west of England, although somebody I know has just got a £75m government contract for south Wales. He'll probably walk away with a £1m +

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184

QUOTE (Tranque @ Oct 15 2009, 07:40 AM)

I also don't imagine the oil industry is going to open their arms wide and accept the death of their industry in favor of green technology

By this logic, no industry would. When something is obsolete/inefficient, the market moves to favour alternatives - in other words, someone will set up green technology to make money, and when there are some alternatives to oil that are readily available, people will stop buying oil and coal and it will slowly fade away, but you can't expect them to ditch their unsellable rigs and mines (speculators nigga, if they all ditch oil and coal, they'd be seen as shit investments) and buy expensive solar panels etc.

QUOTE (Tranque)

The internets are serious business!

QUOTE (TreeFitty)

i also thought it was obvious that tranque was making a joke

QUOTE (punxtr)

That being said, Skinny, dude, t'was a joke that Tranque made. Practically facetious.

Maybe you guys should have read the topic before giving your two cents?

QUOTE (Skinny)

although it was a joke, it still shows how you feel, your motivations for feeling that way, and what you think of those who oppose global warming.

That being said, Skinny, dude, t'was a joke that Tranque made. Practically facetious.

Maybe you guys should have read the topic before giving your two cents?

QUOTE (Skinny)

although it was a joke, it still shows how you feel, your motivations for feeling that way, and what you think of those who oppose global warming.

Oh, and punxtr, facetious doesn't mean "for humour's sake".

My judgment of his comment was only in context to his comment. Not yours. You fail. I never said nor implied "for humor's sake" so you fail again. His comment is practically facetious because it hardly makes any sense at all yet carries a serious tone with no serious purpose behind it, therefore facetious for all practical purposes. Fail.